Tried below before Hon. W. A. Blackburn. The indictment contained two counts; one for rape upon a female under the age of 12 years, and one for assault with intent to commit rape upon a female under the age of 12 years. At the trial the prosecution was had upon the second account, for assault with intent to commit rape, and appellant being convicted of that offense, his punishment was assessed at a term of two years in the penitentiary.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1893-11-11
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
Appellant was convicted of assaulting a child under 12 years of age, with intent to ravish her, and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
¶2
1. A reversal of the judgment is urged, because the verdict failed to state the finding of the jury as to the age of defendant, and because the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.
¶3
With reference to the first contention, we think the verdict sufficient; that it is not necessary the jux-y should state the age of the defendant in their verdict. The Act of 1889, page 97, section 12, provides, that when the accused is 16 yeax-s of age or less, and the punishment is confinement-in the penitentiaxy for five years or less, he shall be confined in the reformatory, providing “ the jxxry convicting shall say in their verdict whether the convict shall be sent to the reformatory or the penitentiary.” This latter provision is mandatory, and the jury must specify the place of confinement. But it has not been held, nor, indeed, is it true, that it is necessary to state in the verdict the finding of the age of the defendant. A gexxeral verdict is xxsually sufficient, and is so xxnless there is some provisioxx or requirement of law making it necessary to make a special finding. While it is necessary that the provisions of the cited section slxoixld be given in charge, in regard to the age of the accused, as was doxxe in this case, so as to direct the jxxry as to the discretion and duty devolving upon them in fixing the place of punishment, it does not fol
*426
low that their conclusion as to such age should be stated in the verdict. If his punishment is fixed at confinement in the “ house of correction and reformatory,” it necessarily follows that they have found the age to be 16 or less years; and if they confine him in the penitentiary, it is wholly immaterial whether he be over or under 16 years of age. For if he be less, the jury have the discretion to place him in the penitentiary, and if he be over that age, it necessarily follows that he be sent to the same place. We think that it was unnecessary for the verdict to state the age of the defendant under said section 12, cited.
¶4
2. There is a serious conflict in the evidence. The testimony for the State fully sustains the conviction, while that introduced by the defense would have justified an acquittal. Under such a state of case, we would not be authorized to disturb the finding of the jury.
